headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Dec 2007 21:22
Picon
Picon

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

John C Klensin wrote:

> figuring out what we are doing and documenting it would 
> certainly be a good idea, my suggestion was carefully
> written to be feasible without any action as formal as
> opening 2026.

Yes, and you also said that you're not going to do it.
If Brian wants to tackle it he'd likely integrate your
idea in his "appeal" I-D, Harald might prefer an ION to
have it on public record, IMO there are various ways to
"implement" your proposal.

> All it would take to implement that part of my suggestion
> would be an announcement that, while the appeal window
> remains at two months, any appeals that intend to ask for
> a publication hold must be announced in some substantive
> way within some much shorter time.

Okay, but it's not a clean hack.  In both cases where I felt
a sudden urge to appeal (sitefinder-verisign and termination
of MARID) I ended up with speed reading RFCs based on grep
and Google searches, I'd certainly have missed anything more
subtle, e.g. an ION or old IESG announcement buried in a list
archive.  I needed three months to find "3710 to historic" as
a potential "remedy", it wasn't on my CD ROM with RFCs, and
of course three months was anyway far too late.  

BTW, that's a flaw in Brian's proposal to deprecate the STD 1
rule, not everybody reads the RFCs online with access on a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 2 Dec 2007 23:36
Favicon

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

Sorry for the complete change in subject, but I think it's important  
to avoid confusion here:

On 1 dec 2007, at 12:22, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Disclaimer, I like Excel
> on boxes where it's available, it's a nice product.  But it's
> not nice enough to say that 1900-02-29 was day 60 in year 0,
> if that's what the 6000 ooXML pages say (I only looked at some
> nits in the BSI Wiki, I never read any page of the huge draft).

What are you trying to say here?

There never was a februari 29 in 1900 so giving that non-existant day  
a number would be problematic. From your statement, I assume there is  
a standard that does this, but I'm not sure which one and why. Could  
you enlighten us?
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Norbert Bollow | 3 Dec 2007 12:19
Picon

OOXML (was Re: Should the RFC Editor...)

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch <at> muada.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the complete change in subject, but I think it's important  
> to avoid confusion here:
> 
> On 1 dec 2007, at 12:22, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> > Disclaimer, I like Excel
> > on boxes where it's available, it's a nice product.  But it's
> > not nice enough to say that 1900-02-29 was day 60 in year 0,
> > if that's what the 6000 ooXML pages say (I only looked at some
> > nits in the BSI Wiki, I never read any page of the huge draft).
> 
> What are you trying to say here?
> 
> There never was a februari 29 in 1900 so giving that non-existant day  
> a number would be problematic. From your statement, I assume there is  
> a standard that does this, but I'm not sure which one and why. Could  
> you enlighten us?

I'm not sure how much enlightenment is possible with regard to such
a silly issue, but having participated in the discussion of this issue
in the concerned "standardization committee" of the Swiss Association
for Standardization, I'm able to provide a bit of background
information:

First of all, I wouldn't call the OOXML specification a "standard"
("Ecma-glorified documentation" would be a more fitting description of
what it really is, IMO), but it is true that the OOXML spec requires
the famous one-off bug in the "common day and time representation" for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 3 Dec 2007 01:28
Picon
Picon

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Could you enlighten us?

Really, no :-)  You could check what's really going
on, grab a copy of ECMA 376 and tell us what it says.
Maybe try your luck at <http://www.noooxml.org/1900>. 

With Redmond it's as with spammers, the one thing 
that's worse than spammers are the anti-spammers.

 Frank
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John C Klensin | 1 Dec 2007 21:43

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?


--On Saturday, 01 December, 2007 21:22 +0100 Frank Ellermann
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> John C Klensin wrote:
>  
>> figuring out what we are doing and documenting it would 
>> certainly be a good idea, my suggestion was carefully
>> written to be feasible without any action as formal as
>> opening 2026.
> 
> Yes, and you also said that you're not going to do it.

Yes.  I have made a personal decision that spending my time on
Internet technology and protocols is better for the Internet and
better for my mental and physical health than making further
investments in IETF procedures.  That decision has been
reinforced by an assortment of actions in the past, including
IAB, IESG, and Nomcom actions.   I will probably continue to
track issues like this, and IPR ones, etc.   I may even express
opinions about what might be placed in an I-D.   But, if process
I-Ds need to be written, someone else will need to write them,
at least unless someone starts paying me a salary to do so.

> If Brian wants to tackle it he'd likely integrate your
> idea in his "appeal" I-D, Harald might prefer an ION to
> have it on public record, IMO there are various ways to
> "implement" your proposal.

Of course, although I am in strong agreement with Spencer's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane